Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

You don't spend 11 years (kindergarten to 10th) in a Christian school and come out with no knowledge of the Bible. I'm gonna go out on a limb, and stop me if I'm assuming too much, but Dre-Man is an asshole. [/sarcasm]

At 2/23/07 07:36 PM, Imperator wrote: A gift from Dre:

The rest of Newgrounds may not be intelligent enough to see how entirely idiotic you are, seeing as though most of them are atheists that don't know a flying fuck about the Bible, but there are the few people out there, such as me, that can see exactly how unbiblical you and your religion are.

I thought that was especially pertinent, since he makes the claim of being the end all expert on Christianity.

Shit, even the IRA is more tolerant than this moron........

Maybe he is one of Felps 'God Hates Fags' people of the westborro baptist church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist _Church

Considering that the Pope was around since the foundation of Christianity and Peter's travels to Rome and his foundation of the Bishop of Rome aka The Pope.

Another pathetic idiot, MortifiedPenguins, issued this post which you advocated strongly. The plain and simple fact is that Peter wasn't the Pope. Never is the word 'Pope' even mentioned in the Bible, at all. Whilst you can trace Peter's successors to the current Pope, that does not mean that Peter himself was a Pope.

Peter didn't even invent the term 'Pope' and certainly didn't invent Saint prayer. Peter was NOT under any circumstance a Catholic, which all previous Popes have been.

Saint prayer and other forms of polytheistic paganistic traditions came from the Roman pagans who adopted Christianity and invented what is now 'Roman Catholicism'. Both the history and modern practices of your church are unbiblical and unholy, and I will not stand for this slur of true Christianity without a fight.

"Better to destroy all which is evil, so that all which is good may flourish." Eh, Imperator?

The only thing that remains is for you to have the balls to post this on the Politics forum in the Science vs. Religion thread. If not I'll assume you to not only be a fool, but also a coward.

Good day to you.

================================

I wanted to post this up, since it isn't even addressed to me (despite being in a PM addressed to me). I feel everyone has a right to defend themselves, thus I'm posting it, even though I think it's against forum rules.......

Whatever, ban away. I'll be on vacation the next few days anways.

Catch y'all later!

Good buy Imperator, you are one of the intelligent posters on this thread, so long.

At 2/23/07 07:25 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Do you know why he was banned?

verbally attacking Gygibo after he saw her myspace. called her ugly and that she should save us all by killing herself. i love the irony.

p.s. she had done absolutley nothing to him and i don't think she mentioned God or religion anywhere either.

At 2/23/07 06:32 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Dre-Man, like Richard Dawkings, is a whore...

psh, Dawkings is awesome...hes the super atheist right?

At 2/24/07 12:12 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 2/23/07 06:32 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Dre-Man, like Richard Dawkings, is a whore...

psh, Dawkings is awesome...hes the super atheist right?

A super whore, i just dont like him...

You know how God planted his seed into the Virgin Mary? Well since it's without her consent wouldn’t that be qualified a rape?

At 2/23/07 06:08 PM, Imperator wrote: Interesting.....
I'd be curious as to what that theory says as to why intelligence has grown in humans, but not chimps (as the opposite then holds true).
Wonder what factors they think are the right mix for the development of intelligence.....

You pose an interesting question, one that I cannot even presume to answer to the fullest extent but I'll try.

Intelligence is in my view much like an opposable thumb, longer claws or canine teeth, to wit an eveloutionary advantage that encouraged survival. The primeval humans who first gazed upon a rock and realised its uses as a weapon would survive much longer than they're companions. As history goes on this trend continues: after the rock it was crafting and shaping the rock to make it more deadly, from there it is molding the rock into tool, then affixing the rock to wood and from there we're into the realm of early metallurgy. Therefore the humans that were intelligent enough to utilise these survived much longer and procreated more, spreading this 'intelligence' gene onto further generations (I assume you all understand the basic principle of genetics so I shan't bother explaining it any further).

This in mind I believe I can answer why it developed in chimps: it simply was not necessary. We moved from the safety of the trees and were suddenly subjected to many more influences than our common ancestor. We were now in unfamiliar environs where the ability to climb quickly or grip onto hanging objects exceptionally well were essentially uselss. We needed to be able to manipulate tools simply to survive and progress as a species, our ancestors who became chimps however simply got better at what they had been doing: foraging for food on the canopy floor or in the trees, gripping onto branches and escaping from predators vertically.

Based upon this I would say that what is essential for the growth of intelligence is this: a species leaves its previous habitat where it was the 'fittest' (to coin a phrase) and moves to somewhere it is not (I.E. from the trees to the savannah plains) possibly because of competition or the search for food. Now its previous abilities are next to useless so it turns to a previously unused area: intelligence. The smartest survive which leads on to my first paragraph.

Just a possiblitly.

At 2/24/07 02:24 PM, Pontificate wrote: This in mind I believe I can answer why it DID NOT developed in chimps

A mistake that required immediate correction, curse this lack of an editing tool.

Let me just say: Science (or logic) and religion are incompatible.

It's become a disturbingly "popular" or "cool" belief to say that the two can work together, but seriously, think about it. It has no basis. I present the following examples of religion being completely at odds with science:

-God is all-knowing/all-powerful (either would create a contradiction with logic/science. See: Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, The Burrito Paradox, Laws of Physics)

-God created the universe (see: law of conservation of matter)

-God is omnipresent (See: laws of physics)

-God raised Jesus from the dead (See: basic biology)

-Almost every "miracle" ever listed in the bible (See: Often the Law of Conservation of Matter, although Laws of Physics apply too. Geography and meteorology appoly some, too)

...I could go on. The concept of a being that has unrestricted power is a scientifically flawed concept, as the kind of power listed in the bible claims that it can override science.

Another point to make: While evolution is not a fact in the sense that it is 100% proven, it is irrational to disbelieve in evolution. Asking for proof of evolution is like asking for proof that 1+1=2 - that is, the concept is derived as making logical sense and then applied to the physical world. Just as the mathematical truth of "1+1=2" was derived from thinking "Hm. If I have a 1 and then I go 1 more, I Get 2.", the concept of "species evolve" is dervied from thinking "Hm. If species show genetic variation and genetics are inhereted, traits that help a being survive to reproduce will be passed on and become more prevalent.".

There certainly is physical evidence of evolution out there - increasing complexity of fossil records through time, etc. - but to disbelieve in evolution due to lack of "proof" is about as rational as disbelieving in math due to lack of physical proof.

At 2/24/07 03:12 PM, Devils-Advocate wrote: It's become a disturbingly "popular" or "cool" belief to say that the two can work together, but seriously, think about it. It has no basis. I present the following examples of religion being completely at odds with science:

I would disagree but only to a certain extent. Fundamentalism cannot work with science, of course it can't and the same goes for several beliefs. But religion as an institution... Well yes it can and I personally believe it has to if it has any hope of carrying on into the centuries ahead of us. As I have said before religion provides spiritual answers that frankly logic, reason and science cannot as of yet. It is my firm belief that given enough time these answers can be found, but till then only religion offers these. So a marriage of the two is out of the question, but they will have to work in tandem for the time being so that nihilism does not create a dystopia of this world. Eventually, when humanity is ready to accept the objective pointlessness of its own existance then religion can gently fade into the ether as a no longer necessary part of society. Till then though the two will have to co-exist in a, thankfully (Galileo, anyone?), secular world.

As for some of the more outlandish parts of the bible (such as the miracles) it must be remembered that many theologians claim that the bible should not be interpreted literally, St.Augustine himself took this view I believe.

At 2/24/07 03:12 PM, Devils-Advocate wrote: Let me just say: Science (or logic) and religion are incompatible.

It was logic that led people to believe that the sun went around the earth, dont atomatically assume your ideas are the moast logical, regardless of being true or not.

It's become a disturbingly "popular" or "cool" belief to say that the two can work together, but seriously, think about it. It has no basis. I present the following examples of religion being completely at odds with science:

-God is all-knowing/all-powerful (either would create a contradiction with logic/science. See: Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, The Burrito Paradox, Laws of Physics)

-God created the universe (see: law of conservation of matter)

Dumbass, God made the univers with rules and laws governing it, the law of conservation of matter came with it, so how can it exsist befor the universe itself? unless you believe in magic.

-God is omnipresent (See: laws of physics)

Why would the laws of the universe effect God?

Only your bumbassity is omnipresent.

-God raised Jesus from the dead (See: basic biology)

-Almost every "miracle" ever listed in the bible (See: Often the Law of Conservation of Matter, although Laws of Physics apply too. Geography and meteorology appoly some, too)

Your a moron like I was talking about earlier.

...I could go on. The concept of a being that has unrestricted power is a scientifically flawed concept, as the kind of power listed in the bible claims that it can override science.

Another point to make: While evolution is not a fact in the sense that it is 100% proven, it is irrational to disbelieve in evolution. Asking for proof of evolution is like asking for proof that 1+1=2 - that is, the concept is derived as making logical sense and then applied to the physical world. Just as the mathematical truth of "1+1=2" was derived from thinking "Hm. If I have a 1 and then I go 1 more, I Get 2.", the concept of "species evolve" is dervied from thinking "Hm. If species show genetic variation and genetics are inhereted, traits that help a being survive to reproduce will be passed on and become more prevalent.".

There certainly is physical evidence of evolution out there - increasing complexity of fossil records through time, etc. - but to disbelieve in evolution due to lack of "proof" is about as rational as disbelieving in math due to lack of physical proof.

What does that have to do with relligion being wrong?

You dissapoint me.

At 2/24/07 05:07 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: It was logic that led people to believe that the sun went around the earth

Er, yeah, that was before the invention of objective empirical observation. People probably just looked and saw that the sun appeared to be going around the earth, rather than testing it and ruling out any other possibilities.

The Greeks used logic to determine that the earth travels around the earth rather than the other way round.

At 2/24/07 05:07 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: It was logic that led people to believe that the sun went around the earth, dont atomatically assume your ideas are the moast logical, regardless of being true or not.

And it was religion that kept that same view after it was discovered to be the other way around.

At 2/24/07 05:59 PM, Snerd wrote:

And it was religion that kept that same view after it was discovered to be the other way around.

It takes a while for an Idea to catch on, think of the time period and what moast people thought made sence.

At 2/24/07 06:06 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

At 2/24/07 05:59 PM, Snerd wrote:

And it was religion that kept that same view after it was discovered to be the other way around.

It takes a while for an Idea to catch on, think of the time period and what moast people thought made sence.

They called people heretics because they trusted science. The Catholic Church didn't exactly treat heretics like their neighbors.

At 2/24/07 06:28 PM, Snerd wrote:

At 2/24/07 06:06 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

At 2/24/07 05:59 PM, Snerd wrote:

They called people heretics because they trusted science. The Catholic Church didn't exactly treat heretics like their neighbors.

The Catholic Church had a lot of power then, it hade its own kingdom in Rome and the Paple states, power and all the money they got was a big incentive for keeping the church stomping down on thought, think of it as more of a king stomping down free-thinking than relligion stomping down on science.

At 2/24/07 06:36 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: The Catholic Church had a lot of power then, it hade its own kingdom in Rome and the Paple states, power and all the money they got was a big incentive for keeping the church stomping down on thought, think of it as more of a king stomping down free-thinking than relligion stomping down on science.

Never thought of it like that! It completely justifies everything! I hope you can taste my sarcasm.

Let me ask all of you two questions: The first, can somebody please tell exactly how this whole separation of church and state idea applies to our government? Apparently it is one of the amendments on the constitution, but not that matters of anything... or so it would seem that that is how our government views our constitution. My second question is; If God is so unquestioningly powerful and great, then why didn't he put his almighty hand over all of those people who died on 9/11 and protect them from the evil in the world? Need I say anymore?

At 2/24/07 08:28 PM, Towns1 wrote: Let me ask all of you two questions: The first, can somebody please tell exactly how this whole separation of church and state idea applies to our government? Apparently it is one of the amendments on the constitution, but not that matters of anything... or so it would seem that that is how our government views our constitution. My second question is; If God is so unquestioningly powerful and great, then why didn't he put his almighty hand over all of those people who died on 9/11 and protect them from the evil in the world? Need I say anymore?

Let me address your constitutional issue. In this country, we have freedom of and from religion. You see, the founding fathers fought against the British for rights and they weren't about to set up a country that didn't protect the very rights that their friends and family had died to save. You could say that the Articles of Confederation was the aforementioned ineffectual government, but it didn't last too long. I'm getting sidetracked... The Bill of Rights, more specifically, the First Amendment, grants us freedom of religion. Freedom of religion has been legally interpretted to also mean freedom from religion. Before anyone says anything against freedom from religion, know this: That's why your church doesn't have to pay taxes, Christians. The United States government can't levy taxes on a legally recognized religious organization because then that could mean the government would be allowed to dictate which religions stay and which ones go out of the window. You see, this principle works the other way, too. How would you like it if a religion you despised and thoroughly disagreed with ran the government? Granted, we live in a de facto theocracy in America, but, on paper, we're a secular nation. Michael Shermer, president of the Skeptic Society, once presented a Christian with this (I'm paraphrasing): If Islam becomes the number one religion in America and they decided to change America into an Islamic republic, you would cry out for separation of church and state. Essentially, that's why we have it: To keep Uncle Sam out of the pews, and to keep Pastor McPreach from writing his own laws.

At 1/18/07 04:13 PM, zeus-almighty wrote: Damn you're athiest division! Let the people belive in what they want even if it is not supposrted by science they still have faith! Do you actually think that discriminating against the religious will actually lead to some sort of peace?

amen. Religion should not even be debated on a forum cause all the athiests are like "Where's teh proof?" and the Believers are like "You don't have teh Faith, fuck off"... well that's what they should say, but they keep posting what they believe and the athiests that reply are always dickheads that deserve to be shot in the mouth.

At 2/24/07 10:08 PM, g4smart wrote: the athiests that reply are always dickheads that deserve to be shot in the mouth.

Mmm... discrimination and hatred...

At 2/24/07 05:07 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: It was logic that led people to believe that the sun went around the earth, dont atomatically :assume your ideas are the moast logical, regardless of being true or not flame flame flame :flame flame God made the univers with rules and laws governing it, the law of conservation :of matter came with it, so how can it exsist befor the universe itself? flame flame flame :flame flame flame Why would the laws of the universe effect God? flame flame flame :flame flame What does that have to do with relligion being wrong? flame flame

-It was indeed logic that led people to believe that the sun went around the earth, but it was bad logic. Good logic suggests otherwise. And I'd hardly call it "my ideas." I'm pretty sure someone else came up with the whole "sun revolves around the earth" thing.

-God predates physics? That's a fresh one. For one thing, logic, like math, is an abstract concept that isn't created or destroyed; it's just "there". Also, I'd be interested to see how you claim to have evidence about what happened before the laws of the universe were in place.

-Exactly. The laws of the universe couldn't effect God, meaning God and the Laws of the Universe are in conflict. QED.

-It has nothing to do with religion being wrong; it has things to do with evolution being right.

At 2/24/07 11:06 PM, Devils-Advocate wrote:

-It was indeed logic that led people to believe that the sun went around the earth, but it was bad logic. Good logic suggests otherwise. And I'd hardly call it "my ideas." I'm pretty sure someone else came up with the whole "sun revolves around the earth" thing.

It made perfect sence to people back then.
Oh and i diddnt mean the sun around the earth thing, I ment your other ideas.

-God predates physics? That's a fresh one. For one thing, logic, like math, is an abstract concept that isn't created or destroyed; it's just "there". Also, I'd be interested to see how you claim to have evidence about what happened before the laws of the universe were in place.

Why wold Physics exsist when there was no univeres, no matter or energy, or even space and time?, it just doesnt make sence what your saying.

I dont have evidence for the exsistance of nothing,. Before?, maybe god made another world or something i dont know, or maybe just nothing, but ther can be no evidence that predates reality as we know it.

Its a complicated concept.

-Exactly. The laws of the universe couldn't effect God, meaning God and the Laws of the Universe are in conflict. QED.

You missed my point.

-It has nothing to do with religion being wrong; it has things to do with evolution being right.

How so? thats a different debate.

Oh! and Flame! Flame! Flame!

At 2/24/07 10:08 PM, g4smart wrote: cause all the athiests are like "Where's teh proof?" and the Believers are like "You don't have teh Faith, fuck off"... well that's what they should say, but they keep posting what they believe and the athiests that reply are always dickheads that deserve to be shot in the mouth.

You haven't even read the thread, have you?

Look at this
And this

I'm begining to think this thread is becoming a drag.

I think the thread is still alive, i put to much typing into this thread to let it dye soon.

At 2/24/07 09:33 AM, Zoraxe7 wrote: A super whore, i just dont like him...

how can you not like super whores? such easy access.